BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:50 AM

Three Labour politicians, one of whom now a Labour peer.
I absolutely do not want special treatment for any group.
Why do you claim that?

I still can not find your explanation for the over representation.
It is not laziness.
Are you sure you ever gave one?

No explanation is provable.
All that can be said is that they are consistent with the facts.
If they are then they warrant consideration.
No flaws have been found in the explanations of Straw, Cryer or Ahmed.
Have they?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:08 AM

I asked several times for your explanation Lox.
This is the only time you responded.
You start by quoting me, but never answer.


"you have no alternative ideas."

The subject of the thread isn't "paedophile Gangs"

The subject is "Muslim Prejudice".

Is prejudice against Moslems an issue? Is it understandable? Why? What reasons? ...

... well one is that "they" traffick young white girls ...

(this is presumably after they've come over here and taken our jobs)

Well actually, this has nothing to do with Islam, or Pakistani culture, and there is no evidence or reliable argument that supports that accusation.

Wait - hang on - Keith thinks there is ... and he will fight to the bitter end to try to prove it, even when the very weak evidence he has provided is shown not to give any weight to the views he thinks are "reasonable".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:43 AM

I do not call you liar Lox.
We have all made posts that have disappeared.

There is no post of yours that explains,
"that the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis"
or
"In this case, the gangs are comprisedd mainly, though not exclusively, by men of Pakistani origin."

Please give us your explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:12 AM

Romanian Gangs are predominantly romanian.

Russian Gangs are predominantly Russian.

Pakistani gangs are predominantly Pakistani.


I have offered alternative explanations and I have found fundamental flaws with Cryers and Straws arguments and they are there to be read by those with the wit to read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:04 AM

No, you have not.
And because you have not, you can not repeat them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:06 PM

It`s easy to see that this will be a three-pipe thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 02:39 PM

Whatever Keith,

All you are proving now is that you haven't read my posts properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:18 PM

Lox, I have really tried.
If I can't find it or remember it, others won't either.
Does anyone out there know Lox's explanation, or what faults he found with the other one?

Why not tell us again Lox?
Or direct us the the post.
Because it does exist, right?
People will start to wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

Al ...I believe you are a liberal, a true liberal wishes to debate and understand his opponent's point of view.

Unfortunately those participating in this thread, who are apologising for the conduct of the Muslim Pakistani criminals, are "liberals".....definition being Fascists masquerading as liberals.
As you have noted, their M.O. is personal abuse, multiple posts which say nothing relevent to the thread, simply used as a mechanism to stop debate.
I am at the opposite end of the political spectrum from both Keith and Miss Phillips....but I never allow my political opinions to deflect me from obvious truth.
Keith has demolished all opposition here by simply stating the facts relating to the crimes.
He opponents have been reduced to stuttering repetitive parrots, there is no defense for what has happened to these children.
They are unable or unwilling to answer any of the points he raises.

Miss Phillips, in the link I posted tells of vitreolic abuse received in response to her article ....including death threats, this from promoters of a "liberal" agenda?

The large Pakistani muslim community in Glasgow is a typical example of why multiculturalism is a failure.
There is no integration of cultures the numbers of mixed marriages can be counted on one hand and usually mean excommunication from the Muslim side of the family.....racial blackmail?

There is a wealth of evidense available, from care workers, police, independent experts, Ex Cabinet ministers, MPs. etc stating that these crimes were cultural in nature......the opposition have offered up no evidence to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

"There is a wealth of evidense available, from care workers, police, independent experts, Ex Cabinet ministers, MPs. etc stating that these crimes were cultural in nature"

Where?

Its your claim - back it up.

So far the only evidence you have shown us is a columnists opinion from the Mail - and as Steve points out rather beautifully, she argues two opposing views in the same article.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:48 PM

Unfortunately those participating in this thread, who are apologising for the conduct of the Muslim Pakistani criminals, are "liberals".....definition being Fascists masquerading as liberals.
As you have noted, their M.O. is personal abuse...

I find the apparent lack of irony in the way you express yourself to be very touching.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:49 PM

And what has your contribution been Lox?
Your position is just that all minorities are above criticism, and no culture may be questioned.

Even to state the obvious truth, that BP girls are discouraged from engaging in courtship, is to be guilty of "wild generalisations."

You dismiss the theory put forward by three prominent, Left wing politicians with deep knowledge of the community, but you are unable to describe any flaw, or provide any alternative.

Demanding proof is an empty gesture.
Such theories are not susceptible to proof.
Even yours if you had one.

The theory is consistent with the facts, self consistent, has no logical flaws, and no alternative offered.
But you will not even consider it.

So what has been your contribution Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:27 PM

You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment.
It is a factor that most groups do not have to deal with, and it is only a suggestion.

How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?

We are all individuals, with individual weaknesses.
The over representation is a fact.
This de-racialises it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:37 AM

Steven....my whole statement was loaded with irony....:0)

Perhaps the irony escapes you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:35 AM

Commended to attention: two stories in this morning's Times:

p 3 ~ "Thousands of young people put at risk as families defy courts over forced marriage"

p 30 ~ "Karzai law promise tested by lovers' stoning death film" --

Just how long can Lox and Steve & all their oh-so-worthy, well-meaning, antiracist, my·mind·is·made·up·so·please·do·not·confuse·me·with·facts lot go on wilfully turning a blind eye to the reality of the threat of Islamism?

{Lox ~ I have no colostomy; shower daily & do not suffer from BO; am not in a wheelchair; am not into bondage: so what charming piece of rude abuse are you going to find to fling at me this time, you contemptible little cad? Are you seeing anyone about these sad and alarming obsessions of yours? If not, you certainly should.}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 04:06 AM

... & btw, Lox, does it not occur to you that there are probably Catters reading this thread who are wheelchair-bound or colostomy-dependent? I wonder what they must think of your delightful choice of matter·for·insult, you nasty little man?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 04:11 AM

I think he might have left again.
We should install a revolving door!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM

Well, I personally think that stoning and forced marriages are bad things. I hope that makes you happy. But the point is you seem to want to make a case against Islam. Actually, when you think about it, you tend to hear about stonings because they are rare. Hundreds of people put to death by the state in the US and China are so workaday that you don't see them in The Times very often unless you search around on the bottom of page 33. That isn't in any way to justify stonings, but it's worth remembering that there are over a billion Muslims on this planet and you hear about stonings, how often? I'm an atheist and I think Christianity has done much damage, but I'm not going to make a whole case against it on the basis of a few errant priests. I have far better arguments. Stonings are horrible and it's good that we get to hear about them, but I have to wonder what your motive is in pointing up this one example when so many other rotten things are going on in the names of any religion or none.

It's quite interesting, actually, that not all young Muslims are opposed to arranged marriages (and, in many cases, the pejorative western epithet "forced" is not the best term to describe them). Maybe this whole "marriage" business needs a good looking at...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:00 AM

I am not 'making a case' against Islam or Muslims, Steve; but against Islamism ~~ and don't pretend you don't know the difference. I know the adherents of this particular mode of the faith are far from a majority: but they are uncontrollable by that majority, & by their nature are going to have the most impact, which will be most felt ~~ or did the Twin Towers just happen to fall over, or that London bus on 7/7 suffer from spontaneous combustion? The truth, as you well know, is that there will be a few well-meaning and ineffectual voices raised from within Islam against Taleban & Al-Qaeda, to which they will pay precisely no attention; but the majority of Muslims will just sit back & let things proceed; many of whom will secretly ~ or not even, in every case, so secretly ~ rejoice that that way lies the probable ultimate triumph of Jihad & the Da'wa. I would commend the wise saying of Edmund Burke ~ "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:06 AM

"And what has your contribution been Lox?
Your position is just that all minorities are above criticism, and no culture may be questioned."

Interesting tactic.

Responding to things I haven't said, but ignoring the things I have said.


"How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?"


Another ridiculous argument.

Pay attention to the refutation so you remember it.


You could say this about any influence - what paper they read, whether they live near power lines, whether they have beards, whether they were abducted by aliens.


Without EVIDENCE that any of these things are responsible for crimninals trafficking in young women, all these suggestions, including yours, are just hair brained nonsense.

You still have no evidence to support your claim and you still concentrate solely on one factor that dribves these criminals to their crime to the exclusion of all other variables.

HHow do you know it isn't their food, or the absence of alcohol, or a reaction to the cold weather and rain?

Are they all possible reasons?

Yes.

But there is NO EVIDENCE suggesting these things are true, hence they are just imaginary constructs.

Like your hypothesis Keith.

It is an imaginary construct and there is NO EVIDENCE to back it up.


Now please concentrate and try to digest that refutation and then try to remember it so that you won't have to ask me to repeat it later.

The basic substance of it may already be familiar depending on how bad your menory loss is.


Thank you for confirming your position though - I deleted "inevitable" and replaced it with "slight" and got this:

"their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls"

Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?

Do you belueve that British Pakistanbi culture inspires a greater propensity for child abuse than other cultures? or is this just a meaningless statement that applies to all cultures.


Because that would confirm for sure whether you are proposing a bigotted hypothesis or a genuinely considered one.

The absence of any other suggestions combined with the above sentence, with "slight" substituted for "inevitable" doesn't bode well for you.



MtheGM, I'm glad I've pissed you off as that was clearly your intention when you posted to this thread.

In addition, you are in no position to comment about foul language.

I hope you like your reflection.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:14 AM

Of all the pompous crap ...

"I am not 'making a case' against Islam or Muslims, ..."

You hadn't made any case about anything ... are you mad?

"... but against Islamism"


Oh - I see - so younf blinged up gangsters in flashy cars abducting girls and trafficking them is a new tactic of Islamist extremists ...

This is pure gold ...


... this on the other hand is plain lies and slander:

"but the majority of Muslims will just sit back & let things proceed; many of whom will secretly ~ or not even, in every case, so secretly ~ rejoice that that way lies the probable ultimate triumph of Jihad & the Da'wa. I would commend the wise saying of Edmund Burke ~ "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"."


I'll see you at the next EDL demo then shall I?

nob

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:15 AM

but the majority of Muslims will just sit back & let things proceed; many of whom will secretly ~ or not even, in every case, so secretly ~ rejoice that that way lies the probable ultimate triumph of Jihad & the Da'wa.

Yeah, well, that's religion for you. The majority of Christians sit back and let the Pope spread his ill-considered dogma about birth control around the world, forcing millions of African women into poverty and ill-health. If you're not anti-Islam tell me why you single out Muslims for this responsibility to speak out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:19 AM

" "their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls"

Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"

It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)

If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found.

It is consistent with the facts, self consistent, contains no logical flaws, and no alternative yet suggested.

The only problem is your mantra that only Western culture may ever be questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:31 AM

Lox ~~ for the past year or more I have carefully avoided any use of "foul language" ~~ I have recently called you "a contemptible cad" and "a nasty little man": these are the sorts of usages I employ in this kind of controversy on this site. Do you really regard these as "foul language"? My, what an innocent. I defy you to find anywhere, since an unfortunate spat I had on another thread with Suibhne well over a year ago [since when we have much buried our differences & are on good terms], an instance of my having used anywhere on this Forum anything that even your Maiden Aunt Jemima would regard as "foul language".

You, on the other hand, in addition to your charming insults, not just to me, but, I repeat. to those of our Cat-colleagues who might be unfortunate enough to be in wheelchairs or dependent on colostomies, habitually and constantly employ all sorts of choice phraseology.

I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself; but I don't for a second expect you are. And should apologise, to me & to them; but I don't for a second suppose you will.

Where, anyhow, is this post in which you choose to infer that I invited this sort of immoderate and inappropriate response from you? I can't identify it, Can you?

Or, more widely, can anyone else on this thread? Can any of you see where Lox is coming from in his insulting posts addressed so specifically to me? Because [warning ~~ "foul language", MtheGM-style, coming up] I'm dashed if I can {"That's what I am, Jeeves ~ I am positively dashed!"}

I am sorry to have drifted a bit into some personal dispute; but I assert that I didn't start it, and I really don't see why I should remain silent under the obnoxious Lox's deliberate provocations.

(Do you think "obnoxious" foul language, then, Lox. Ah diddums!...)

And I hope it keeps fine for you...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:41 AM

And there is evidence.
Ahmed experienced that sexual deprivation himself as a young man and he believes that it is quite capable of giving rise to the observed pattern of crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:47 AM

M,
You did refer to smoked salmon in connection to Lox.
That does make you something of a bounder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 06:09 AM

Well, Lox does mean smoked salmon: if not after that comestible, why did Lox select his Cat-name? Anyhow, it's scarcely "foul language", is it? I really can't see it as occasion for all this scatter-gun obloquy, which passes me right by because it has no basis in any sort of fact or reality in relation to my own situation (so I don't see the point of his referring to all this as my 'reflection'); but, I reiterate yet again, it must all appear peculiarly distasteful to anyone who is in a wheelchair, or needs a colostomy ~~ or even, I suppose, labours under the responsibility for caring for anyone such.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 06:14 AM

I agree with M on the use of derogatory language in reference to people who are wheelchair bound, or who have had major surgery....or old people in general.

This is despicable, I know for a fact that there are many older people here, some have to use wheelchairs occasionally.

We dont all "smell funny".....and even if we did, the odour would be like rose petals, compared to that which emanates from one particularly obnoxious poster

Perhaps another apology would be in order.....to the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:52 AM

"Yeah, well, that's religion for you. The majority of Christians sit back and let the Pope spread his ill-considered dogma about birth control around the world, forcing millions of African women into poverty and ill-health. If you're not anti-Islam tell me why you single out Muslims for this responsibility to speak out."====

I don't dispute what you say, Steve. But the answer to your question is that, despite the Pope's authority over some of his own co-religionists [mainly, as you say, in the 3rd World ~~ I think few Euro RCs practise birth control much these days ~~ have you read David Lodge's "How Far Can You Go?"?] ~~ Xtianity is not nowadays a proselytising religion as it was in the days of the Crusades & The Holy Office [Inquisition]. OTOH the function of Islamist Jihad is Da'wa. That is the aim of the Islamists & the reason for Taleban & 9/11 & so forth. They see an entirely Muslim world as their holy, Koran-commanded, mission, and will use any means possible, from stoning adutresses to flying planes into skyscrapers, to achieve it.

AND WHATEVER YOU MAY SAY, YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT & it is idle to deny it. You know as well as I do that that is where the current danger lies as adduced in my previous post to which you responded as above. In sum, the Pope is not trying to take over the world; Bin-Laden, Al-Qaeda, Taleban, the Islamist movement, ARE; and you know it.

I hope that answers your question.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:58 AM

""Keith has demolished all opposition here by simply stating the facts relating to the crimes.""

In your dreams!

""He opponents have been reduced to stuttering repetitive parrots, there is no defense for what has happened to these children.
They are unable or unwilling to answer any of the points he raises.""

You can't really be that dim, so I suppose you are just on your usual anti "liberal" troll.

Nobody, but NOBODY, has defended or attempted to defend what happened to those children.

The argument here is simply about the way in which three or four posters here are affected by the words "Muslim", "Islam", "Asian" and "Pakistani", the mere mention of which sets them foaming at the mouth.

Your claim that Keith has demolished all opposition by presenting facts is ludicrous.

He has presented only the opinions of a group of politicos and self styled "experts" whose outpourings he regards as proof of his case.

He doesn't even quote them honestly or accurately, as I have pointed out several times. Jack Straw was at pains to point out that these crimes were "Not a predominantly Asian problem, but disproportionately a white problem".

That didn't fit Keith's agenda, so it was ignored.

All that I want to see is a balanced and logical appraisal before drawing conclusions. Raw figures based on this local matter are statistically insignificant unless one also reports the total number of this kind of case over the same period, in the same area.

Does anybody believe that there were only seventeen cases in thirteen years?....No?

In that case all the rest must have been committed by predominately white groups.

Keith's answer is to ignore the logic, and attempt to broaden the area:

""Derby was typical of a pattern of exploitation being tracked by police and experts around Britain.""

And there is one controversial factor that many of the experts in the field are often not happy to discuss freely. The race of the abusers.

The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.""

Even if this statement (unsupported by a shred of evidence since Keith doesn't give sources, probably doesn't have credible sources) were true, it is also true that these towns are likely to be atypical of the country as a whole, since they all fall within the coast to coast strip of country between Birmingham in the South, and North Yorkshire in the North which, according to public records contains 59.63% of the Pakistanis in the UK.

If anybody has any concern with the plight of the victims, I would have expected some insistence on the whole picture.

Those who react with an instant knee jerk to a "Muslim" crime are not screaming about the crime at all. They are not bothered about the victim. It is the perpetrators they home in on, and their critical faculties (if any) go on hold while they pursue their agenda of finding a justification of their "Muslim = BAD".

I know Keith won't bother to read this, so would somebody mind explaining it to him?

No point trying to explain it to Ake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:01 AM

And Lox, the above answer to Steve might be regarded as some reply to your last fatuous post to me. I decline to dispute directly with you, because frankly you are clearly just not intelligent enough to make such a procedure worth while; can't think why anybody bothers to do so, in fact. Trying to argue with your entrenched parroted repetitious point-missing non-points is much like trying to batter down a brick wall with one's head.

Please don't bother to reply, as I don't propose to waste any more time reading any post with your name at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan whittle
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:52 AM

Oh well! That's cleared that up!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 10:37 AM

Come on Michael, don't beat about the bush, out with it....say what you mean, man! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:50 AM

Don, I did give that source. Yorkshire News I think.
Just google the text. It is cut and paste.
You are wrong about what Jack Straw said.
This is from BBC site.
However, speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme after the case, Mr Straw said vulnerable white girls were at risk of being targeted by some Asian men.

Continue reading the main story
"
Start Quote
The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim."
End Quote
Concerns over sex abuse grooming
He said his own constituency was one of the areas where it was a problem and called on the Pakistani community to be "more open" about the abuse.

He said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:14 PM

Keith,

"It is consistent with the facts, self consistent, contains no logical flaws, and no alternative yet suggested."

Wrong, it contains the logical flaw of being just one of many variables.

It also conatins the logical flaw that sexual abuse and trafficking are not exclusive to British Pakistanis.

And there are many probable alternatives, which apply to the whole community and not just Moslems, many of them just within the British and international Media, and many more that are intrinsic to British and European culture.

But most importantly, you STILL have no evidence.

Lord Ahmed may project his feeling onto others as much as he wishes.

Would you like to suggest that, being English, you know from your childhood experience what drives English rapists to their crimes?

Wait - let me guess, that logic only applies to Moslems.

The only way to test your hypothesis is to do a proper study, that rules out all other variables first, and then clarifies how these sex crimes could only have been committed by British Pakistanis, and couldn't have been committed by Whites.

And Keith, lets not forget that these gangs did in fact have white members (maybe they were non Moslem Islamists).


"It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion."

i.e a legitimate and supportable argument.

Yet there is no evidential or logical support for it.

So that leaves you with nothing more than "because I think so"


"If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found."

And if any other variables, like those shared with other demographics, that might give rise to "just a slight predisposition" then the same could be said.

The only way your hypothesis can work is if and when all other variables are eliminated and it can be proved that sex crimes committed by Pakistani Moslems are different in nature to sex crimes committed by other demographics.

Scientific experiment requires the elimination of variables in order to form a reliable hypothesis.

A hypothesis cannot be said to be reliable until all variables have been accounted for.

In your case, you are deliberately and selectively ignoring other variables and similarities with other cultures, consequently, your hypothesis is unreliable.

The greater the number of unconsidered variables, the less reliable the hypothesis.

There are hundreds of non Islamic cultural influences that have not been factored in, let alone ewwliminated, which renders your hypothesis entirely unreliable.

That is the flaw in your logic.

And finally,

"And that is exactly what is found"

In other words, because a tiny minority of Pakkistanis are sex criminals, therefore Pakistani culture slghtly predisposes Pakistanis to sexual abuse.

According to your logic, all Pakistanis are therefore slightly predisposed to sexual abuse as distinct from other people who are not affected by Pakistani Culture.


That mate is More Slander.


As for MtheGM, Ake, and so on, ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:33 PM

Yeah, I fall asleep when shouted at too....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:42 PM

MtheGM

"WHATEVER YOU MAY SAY, YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT ... grrrrr ... salmon .... lox ... etc ... blither blither ..."

hahaha ... zzzzzzzzz ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:49 PM

Don, some more points from your mega post.

You faked a quote (Jack Straw) to help your case.
Devious.

You talk about us "frothing at the mouth"
All the anger and abuse comes from your side.
We have been very measured in the terms we have used in comparison.

"Does anybody believe that there were only seventeen cases in thirteen years?....No?"

Only 17 cases of this particular crime actually.

Even in those areas, they are much less than half the population, so they are massively over represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:53 PM

Lox, your mega post.

If we are looking for an explanation for BP over representation, we must look for factors specific to them.

Something that it is reasonable to link the the nature of the crime.

That does away with every single silly alternative factor you put up, but leaves the one I have drawn your attention to.

You have not found a flaw, or produced an alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM

Keith,

genuine investigation would begin as follows.

A very small number of British Pakistanis have committed some sex crimes.

A very small minority of other demographics have also committed sex crimes.

It is reasonable to suspect that there is a common factor which inspires all these sex crimes to be committed.

i'e a shared characteristic possessed by all the sex criminals.

On ths basis we may deduce that, if it is a shared characteristic, which is very likely, then it is not one unique to one or other demographic, as it would no longer be shared.

If it is cultural, it must therefore be a cultural factor shared among the various demographics.

Therefore, it cannot be Islamic or Pakistani culture that is to blame, as that is not a shared characteristic.

It must be something else.

What do they have in common?

Well thats what a study might eventually find out, but theres so much to sift through that it could take years.

There's your logic Keith.


You start with the conclusion and call it a hypothesis, and then stand up for it to the bitter end.

And your conclusion is that British Pakistani men are disposed to rape in a way that other men are not.

That mate is called discriminating on the basis of race to the esclusion of all other factors.


That is what you, Ake, and now MtheGM are all doing.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

The only observable factor that makes them distinct is that they choose their victims openly on the street and drive around in flash cars.

Keith, are you sayng that driving round in Flashy cars is peculiarly representative of "BP" culture?

I would have called that very westernized behaviour.

So it isn't that.

What else is there about these crimes that is peculiarly "BP" by nature?

Until you can find something peculiarly "BP", your argument remains unsupported.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

Oh, bugger. I had read that last, uncharacteristically brief post addressed to me, before I noticed who it was from.

So, for the last time, Lox ~~

I wasn't talking to you. So just butt out, Prodnose. {I was working last night, reviewing a good production of Much Ado About Nothing: I am reminded of the line "I wonder you will still be talking, Signor Benedick; nobody marks you".}

And that, M Le Saumon Fumé, or whatever name you like to be known by, you captious, pretentious, pernickety little snob, is positively the last word you get from me. So go back to zzzzzzz: best place for you, you preternaturally unpleasant apology for an organism and gross grotesque waste of space, you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:03 PM

Nice try with the excuse for not having to take account of all possible variables.

Until you do, and as long as you refuse to do so, your hypothesis is racist one.

Why else would you refuse to acknowledge that other influences could be to blame.

Your argument is "I can see only one reason, therefore there is only one reason."

Whereas in fact it only proves that you have tunnel vision.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:22 PM

True enuff. from THAT perspective, we're all racists.

From the other end of the tunnel, are YOU sure YOU have taken account of all the variables before branding people as racists?

You can see only one explanation for our dialogue, that doesn't mean to say its the only reason.

Other influences could be to blame.

perhaps its because YOU have tunnel vision.

or perhaps not....who gives a shit?

Lets climb out of the tunnel and be friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM

I think the point is that British Pakistanis, and I only use the term to be consistent with the thread, are over-represented in these cases. I have no doubt as to the veracity of Keiths figures. Lox has even agreed that it is an over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

I did, incidentaly, put up what I felt were reasonable reasons for such an over-representation earlier but only Keith chose to respond. And then to only agree that he, like myself, did not have an answer!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:31 AM

Shall we accept an empasse?
Summary.
We started by contrasting reaction to revalations of child sex abuse by small minorities of priests and of Pakistanis.
Some thought is significant, others not.

While acknowledging the under representation of BPs in all other non terror crimes including other sex crimes, there is a massive over representation here.

Lox has suggested it has to do with their cars.
He once lived near some BPs.
A former Home Secretary, with an intimate knowledge of his local BP community had another theory, which was added to by Ahmed who had himself grown up in the community.
He is a BP.
Some thought they were probably right.
Others somehow just know they are wrong.

I have nothing more to add really.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:32 AM

Can we agree to put no more than two points at a time to each other please?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 04:54 AM

"Lox has suggested it has to do with their cars."

No Keith -

Once again you fail to respond to my actual post, so instead you make up a point of view and respond to that instead.

So you are creating straw men again

Which is basically telling lies.

What I said was that the only factor which distinguishes these abductions and rapes from those committed by other non Pakistani gangs is that the victims were abducted in cars fgrom the street.

Apart from that, there is no difference in the way these girls were abducted and raped.

So was the manner in which they were abducted and raped particularly Pakistani by nature?

No it wasn't.

"He once lived near some BPs."

No, I lived in a predominantly Moslem Pakistani area for nearly two years.

Another lie.

Is that really the only way you have of responding to my points? Lie about what I said?

The rest of the same post also indicates that you have completely ignored everything I have explained to you.


Alan,

Just to clarify: - if you read back you will see that I called the hypothesis that British Pakistanis are culturally disposed to paedophilia and rape a racist hypothesis.

That is not the same as calling keith a racist, but it does beg the question, why is he so single mindedly sticking up for it to the exclusion of all other possibilities.


Dave

""BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases."

Note the words "in these cases".

In other words, in crimes committed by "predominantly" British Pakistani Gangs, i.e gangs that are predominantl;y made up of british pakistanis, it can be observed, that the criminals are preominantly Pakistani.

I think we should award Keith a Phd for deducing that revealing insight.

SHOCK HEADLINE - 90% of Pakistani gang members are Pakistani!

Keith A of Hertford, a prominent blogger today stated that this shows that Pakistani culture is naturally predisposed to rape and paedophilia.

Empasse? ... followed by straw men? ...

... exactly how many lies do you want me to allow to go unchallenged?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 04:56 AM

"Can we agree to put no more than two points at a time to each other please?"

The idea that geuine debate can be quantified like this is just plain absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:04 AM

"the only factor which distinguishes these abductions and rapes from those committed by other non Pakistani gangs is that the victims were abducted in cars fgrom the street."

There have been no none Pakistani gang that has been found to be involved in such a crime, and that is the only crime under discussion.
Gangs forming for the purpose of street grooming.

Why such gangs have formed is what Straw Cryer and Ahmed spoke about.
What is your explanation?
(Not cars then. Sorry.)